Pulpit

Tackling the enviro challenge

David Bennett

THE biggest issue facing farmers at this time is how to meet the environmental challenge. We all agree that as stewards of the land there will be increasing expectations of our environmental credentials. This is without question and it is what as farmers we have been doing for generations, and our farming systems are constantly evolving to meet the best environmental practices. The question though is how government, industry and farmers should approach these environmental challenges through regulation.

There are two main options.

First, a ‘strict’ approach for where the Government knows best, with one set of rules for the whole country. This approach is difficult in the long-term, as it ignores fundamental geographic, climatic and farming practices. It also relies on getting the rules right in the first place. It has serious implementation issues as it can be seen as forcing change. It may mean farmers change to satisfy the rules rather than meaningful and ongoing change. It has the advantage in that the rules are seen as enforceable.

A better approach is an ‘effectsbased’ approach, in which rules are set with flexibility and pragmatism. These rules and regulations are practical and achievable as they are made in consultation with industry groups. This approach needs industry leadership, such as real financial incentives from our manufacturers and marketers. These incentives are critical to avoid arguments that change will not be fast enough. It will empower farmers to make economic choices to achieve productivity and environmental outcomes.

Farm environment plans (FEPs) would enable these price signals to be acted upon. It involves a collaborative approach from regional councils, government departments and industry body groups in setting and evaluating the rules and regulations. It would be catchment-based and ultimately reflect farmers’ geographical practices.

Farmers will no doubt seek an effects-based approach, rather than a strict approach. It will deliver better results in the longterm than short-term attempts to strictly enforce impractical rules.

This government favours the strict approach. The Government’s Essential Freshwater reforms illustrate how this approach can go wrong. It can lead to changes and delays in the rules as they seek to make them workable. In other cases, like nitrogen levels, they may fervently stick to the rules to the detriment of certain regions.

There is some debate whether or not a ‘negotiated’ stance should be taken with the Government. This is an entirely plausible response and completely rational in the circumstances. However, it does create a sense of validity to the rules and regulations. It enshrines the rules and regulations, and assumes that the Government will act in the best interests of farmers. This approach also means that future governments could easily be labelled as not supporting environmental change if they sought to modify them at a later date.

The question of which approach to take to environmental regulation is playing out in our communities. A strict approach will lead to conflicting views, difficulties in implementation, destocking and less actual environmental change. An effects-based approach based on market signals, catchments, practical and achievable solutions will enable us to take the public and farmers along on the same journey. This creates real and meaningful change that achieves our environmental goals.

The Government’s Essential Freshwater reforms illustrate how this approach can go wrong. It can lead to changes and delays in the rules as they seek to make them workable.

ThePulpit

HOT TOPIC: The question of which approach to take to environmental regulation is playing out in our communities, says David Bennett.

Who am I?

David Bennett is the National Party’s agricultural spokesperson and a dairy farmer.

Your View

Got a view on some aspect of farming you would like to get across? The Pulpit offers readers the chance to have their say. farmers.weekly@globalhq.co.nz Phone 06 323 1519

How can we change fast enough?

THE basis of New Zealand’s troubled and tangled resource allocation problem was laid out in the Ministry for the Environment’s report Our Land 2021 last week.

No matter who we are, or where we live and work, we are all tied to the fate of our land. There is only so long our society can take as if the land can infinitely give. We have to think smarter, because the report shows we’ve reached the limit of what our environment can provide.

We all need to drink water, eat food and breathe air. None of us are separate from the environment. Our fate will be the same as our environment’s, and with the ground beneath our feet literally failing, we should all be asking “how can we change fast enough?”

The report doesn’t hide from difficult facts. Urban land-use is important because that’s where 87% of us live – and because urban sprawl is destroying our best farmland and important ecosystems too. Wherever we are, what we do matters, but the way we produce food is huge. That’s because 40% of NZ is farmed, by far the largest of any active landuse type.

The facts are that our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are increasing, and the increase is linked to more intensive agriculture. Nitrate fertiliser use has increased 700% since 1991. Irrigation has doubled since 2002. Native ecosystems continue to shrink largely through conversion to pasture and pines. Most monitored sites failed one or more soil quality targets. Most rivers and lakes are polluted, and most of them are in rural catchments. Most dairy farms use too much fertiliser, and have compacted soil.

The questions of policy and practice this report implicitly presents to us are big ones. How can we grow food while protecting biodiversity? How can we house people while protecting farmland and nature? How can we live and work while protecting the climate? How can we do more with less, while bringing back nature from the very margins of existence?

This is not a winner versus loser argument over who should be allowed to develop unsuitable land, destroy wildlife, or emit GHGs. All these issues are everyone’s issues. Either we all win, or we all lose.

It is clear from this and previous reports that our environmental problems are serious, urgent, and despite the protestations of vested industries, aren’t fixing themselves. They’re getting worse.

Our farming leaders, urban planners and central policymakers have a decision to make – help NZ transition to systems that protect biodiversity, the climate, fresh water and land, or pour petrol on the fire by doubling down on resource-hungry models that can’t succeed.

What we all must do is shut down the delays, the denial and the ‘what-aboutism’ that seeks to shift blame. It’s time to focus on solutions, and implement them. And we do have solutions. There is now an almost comprehensive set of land-use policies that together may be our best chance to restore the natural resources we all rely on.

Because most rivers and lakes in farming, forestry, and urban areas are polluted, we have a new National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, which will limit nitrogen and other pollution of waterways.

Because urban sprawl continues to spill onto prime food growing land and drive up transport emissions, we have the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to instruct councils to protect rural land and provide connected communities by building up, not out.

Because native ecosystems continue to be lost through conversion to agriculture or forestry, we have the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, which Federated Farmers helped write, and which will protect significant native habitat on private land.

But an effective climate protection policy is still missing. Until agriculture is brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the transport and energy sectors will have to do the heavy lifting on emissions. But other actions can help. There’s over a million hectares of land that could be returned to native forest to cut emissions, save farmland from erosion and improve water quality. When backed up by pest control, NZ’s forests, public and private, will be a vital part of our climate solution.

The solutions to our climate and environmental crises exist. They are our best chance to protect the world we live in, and protect ourselves. It is time to make room for biodiversity, to bring back nature, protect our climate and our future. It will take all of us, and every tool we have. And we have to do it now.

Who am I?

Megan Hubscher is spokesperson for the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand.